The usual teenage stuff, fronting, non declaration of mods.. and a crash

[Hawk Tuah]

Any deviation away from the specification of the vehicle when it left the factory is classed as a modification.

I'm sure when I was ticking boxes on my insurance it specifically asked about performance modifications.

If you're talking about any difference since it left the factory, I would hazard a guess that 99% of peoples cars on here are technically modified in some way.

I mean, are you using OEM brake pads, the exact model and make or tyre that came with it. Have you added mats, de-tangoed indicators?

 

[ubersonic]

There was no third party was there? It was a single vehicle accident and the claim is from the family of the passenger of the car is it not? Which is not quite the same.

Its just occurred to me, isn't this the exact same thing that happened when Hulk Hogans son crashed his 600bhp Supra turning his friend into a vegetable in the process?

 

[stoofa]

But "upgrades" go further than what has been fitted post leaving the factory.
OK, example.

I buy a Ford Focus A.
As far as the insurance companies are concerned this car comes with standard headlights, cloth interior and a standard CD player.

At the point of sale, whilst specifying my car, I decide I'm going to have the HID's, leather interior and the sat-nav.

Now those three extra's should still be declared to the insurance company.
Because on their books, a Ford Focus A doesn't have the three things you've added.
In the case of a total write-off they are very possibly going to be awkward with you.
In the case of say a front-end smash they are expecting to replace a couple of £50 lights when they suddenly get a bill for £500 lights.

Now the next question is just who knows what was standard and non-standard on a particular model of car.
But you can understand why insurance companies get this way.
A "factory purchased" HID upgrade makes a massive difference to the price to repair.
But I'm sure many would not disclose them as they were fitted at the factory - howver they are still a modification from teh standard specification of that particular model.

 

[ubersonic]

But "upgrades" go further than what has been fitted post leaving the factory.
OK, example.

I buy a Ford Focus A.
As far as the insurance companies are concerned this car comes with standard headlights, cloth interior and a standard CD player.

At the point of sale, whilst specifying my car, I decide I'm going to have the HID's, leather interior and the sat-nav.

Now those three extra's should still be declared to the insurance company.
Because on their books, a Ford Focus A doesn't have the three things you've added.
In the case of a total write-off they are very possibly going to be awkward with you.
In the case of say a front-end smash they are expecting to replace a couple of £50 lights when they suddenly get a bill for £500 lights.

Now the next question is just who knows what was standard and non-standard on a particular model of car.
But you can understand why insurance companies get this way.
A "factory purchased" HID upgrade makes a massive difference to the price to repair.
But I'm sure many would not disclose them as they were fitted at the factory - howver they are still a modification from teh standard specification of that particular model.

So you have to declare factory option headlights? what about rear parking sensor options or optional fog lights? they increase repair cost too should we b declaring them? :S

 

[Peerzy]

also if you are getting in said car put your seatbelt on.

Last year a lad round here who I knew (friends of friends etc) crashed whilst doing about 80mph round some very well known dodgy roads.

5 people in the car (inc driver), 4 not wearing seatbelt and lad in the middle seat at the back wearing one of those 1 point lap belts.

4 people who didn't have a seatbelt were thrown from the car on impact and bar a few broken bones all survived.

The 17 year old lad in the middle had his insides ripped in two and died at the scene.

Driver was done for dangerous driving iirc, he was also high and had drunk a few pints that night (was an 18th birthday party) but this was never proven I don't think.

Funny thinking that the one lad who did belt up ended up coming off the worse.


As for telling the insurance company - I wouldn't tell them about anything that was installed at factory (alloys, nav etc...), anything added after the car has left the factory I'd tell them about.

 

[stoofa]

So you have to declare factory option headlights? what about rear parking sensor options or optional fog lights? they increase repair cost too should we b declaring them? :S

Basically anything that doesn't appear on the "Standard Equipment" list of a car you buy in theory should be declared.
Just because it was fitted at the factory doesn't make it any less of an "Upgrade".

 

[Westyfield2]

Despite being a young driver in a Saxo (<3) I agree with the majority here, a young lad with a Chav car who's put Chav mods on it is obviously gonna be driving like a plank and is a higher risk to insure. Hope he's done to the full extent of the law .

But "upgrades" go further than what has been fitted post leaving the factory.
OK, example.

I buy a Ford Focus A.
As far as the insurance companies are concerned this car comes with standard headlights, cloth interior and a standard CD player.

At the point of sale, whilst specifying my car, I decide I'm going to have the HID's, leather interior and the sat-nav.

Now those three extra's should still be declared to the insurance company.
Because on their books, a Ford Focus A doesn't have the three things you've added.
In the case of a total write-off they are very possibly going to be awkward with you.
In the case of say a front-end smash they are expecting to replace a couple of £50 lights when they suddenly get a bill for £500 lights.

Now the next question is just who knows what was standard and non-standard on a particular model of car.
But you can understand why insurance companies get this way.
A "factory purchased" HID upgrade makes a massive difference to the price to repair.
But I'm sure many would not disclose them as they were fitted at the factory - howver they are still a modification from teh standard specification of that particular model.

That's the bit that narks me off. What I'd personally tell the insurance company is "I've bought a Ford Focus A, and with the paint/options/etc the total price was £25,000". There's no way I'd bother listing what every single option was, paint/leather/interior combination etc etc, just the make & model & cost.

 

[SGWills]

Basically anything that doesn't appear on the "Standard Equipment" list of a car you buy in theory should be declared.
Just because it was fitted at the factory doesn't make it any less of an "Upgrade".

these normally fall under exterior changes which would all be covered under one

 

[Jono8]

But "upgrades" go further than what has been fitted post leaving the factory.
OK, example.

I buy a Ford Focus A.
As far as the insurance companies are concerned this car comes with standard headlights, cloth interior and a standard CD player.

At the point of sale, whilst specifying my car, I decide I'm going to have the HID's, leather interior and the sat-nav.

Now those three extra's should still be declared to the insurance company.
Because on their books, a Ford Focus A doesn't have the three things you've added.
In the case of a total write-off they are very possibly going to be awkward with you.
In the case of say a front-end smash they are expecting to replace a couple of £50 lights when they suddenly get a bill for £500 lights.

Now the next question is just who knows what was standard and non-standard on a particular model of car.
But you can understand why insurance companies get this way.
A "factory purchased" HID upgrade makes a massive difference to the price to repair.
But I'm sure many would not disclose them as they were fitted at the factory - howver they are still a modification from teh standard specification of that particular model.

So why does the cars overall value seemingly make little or no difference to a premium

Ive just tried it, 2010 Focus ST was £200 LESS to insure than a 2006-2009 one, even though its the same car and the 2006 model will be half the value. I realise that this is because more accidents have happened in the 2006 models but that is totally non sensical as they have been on the road for 4 years longer! You could argue that it is because younger people are more likely to get a used one as it is cheaper but that doesnt hold up because my age e.t.c. should all already be taken into account.

I want one plausible reason why a £19000 valued, brand new 2010 Focus ST cost £200 less to insure than a 2006/07 one worth £8500. ( and no, " the new ones come fitted with ESP as standard, because i did the older quote as an ST2 or 3 that do have ESP )

**on a rant because i was looking at quotes and didnt realise I had the registration date set to 2010 instead of 2006, which gave me a bit of a shock and some dissapointment when i did another quote **

 

[Jono8]

Did you completely ignore my post explaining this, or did you not understand it? Who cares what you think is logical - insurance companies don't really care why the statistics say what they do, but they dont lie. I really don't know why some people struggle so much with it.

If you keep your car I'm the garage, statistics say you're more likely to make a claim. Does it matter why?

Honestly, it's like trying to explain something to a brick wall

No i understand how it all works, and i realise that they can't consider everyones situation differently, but if you were to see my drive and my road it would make the mind boggle as to why i would be charged £50 more for parking it MUCH more safely on my drive.

 

[SGWills]

So why does the cars overall value seemingly make little or no difference to a premium

Ive just tried it, 2010 Focus ST was £200 LESS to insure than a 2006-2009 one, even though its the same car and the 2006 model will be half the value. I realise that this is because more accidents have happened in the 2006 models but that is totally non sensical as they have been on the road for 4 years longer! You could argue that it is because younger people are more likely to get a used one as it is cheaper but that doesnt hold up because my age e.t.c. should all already be taken into account.

I want one plausible reason why a £19000 valued, brand new 2010 Focus ST cost £200 less to insure than a 2006/07 one worth £8500. ( and no, " the new ones come fitted with ESP as standard, because i did the older quote as an ST2 or 3 that do have ESP )

because valuation only gets rated upon slightly, the price of a car changes as much as the weather does and one persons valuation can be completely off

No i understand how it all works, and i realise that they can't consider everyones situation differently, but if you were to see my drive and my road it would make the mind boggle as to why i would be charged £50 more for parking it MUCH more safely on my drive.

thats the thing, insurance companies cant come out and check everyone's details, hence why they work off an average

plausible reasons -

• less 2010 focus's making claims
• less 2010 focus ST making claims in your area
• more people in your occupation making claims on a 06/07 plate focus

and im sure if i could be bothered there would be more i could list, insurance isnt made up of one detail, so by changing the vheicle, even to a newer model, will have a knock on effect on all the other details

 

[Jono8]

because valuation only gets rated upon slightly, the price of a car changes as much as the weather does and one persons valuation can be completely off

plausible reasons -

• less 2010 focus's making claims
• less 2010 focus ST making claims in your area
• more people in your occupation making claims on a 06/07 plate focus

and im sure if i could be bothered there would be more i could list, insurance isnt made up of one detail, so by changing the vheicle, even to a newer model, will have a knock on effect on all the other details

Yes, but this is likely to be purely because the 2006 one has been around for 4 years longer and therefore far more likely to have been involved in accidents! Which, in itself , is non sensical.

 

[SGWills]

Yes, but this is likely to be purely because the 2006 one has been around for 4 years longer and therefore far more likely to have been involved in accidents! Which, in itself , is non sensical.

it makes sense because the insurance companies can see more past claims history on the older model, as im sure that people would be a bit miffed if they bought a new car and were told that the reason there price has increased is because an older model of car has had loads of claims.

plus with insurance it doesnt have to make sense, its about what they can show on paper so if you can see the statistical side of the insurance then you should know logic doesnt come in to the picture

 

[lawz]

Fitting upgraded brakes marks you out as the sort of driver who drives hard - your gran wouldnt even think about doing it.



Oh sure, the money would roll in. Then roll right back out the door again as payouts.

I dont drive hard, its just a simple fact that a Saxo 1.1's brakes are shocking. If its just me in the car theyre ok, but add anymore people plus a slight downhill and the car will not stop easily. Its the only car ive driven apart from my instructors, and my dad and a few other people who have driven it have commented how bad the brakes are. A Berlingo's brakes are a direct fit to a Saxo and its a common mod for owners who want the added stopping power when the unexpected jumps out at them.

Unfortauntly they wont fit under my standard 13 inch wheels. Interestingly later 1.1 Saxo's had 14 inch steel wheels as standard, which would allow the brakes to fit. Even though they are standard factory fit however, my insurance company quoted the same flat fee to have them. My parents went through something similar when sourcing factory standard alloys for their VW Sharan. It took a lot of arguing before the insurance company gave in.

On the point of why its more expensive to park on your drive/garage than the street, I was once told its due to the amount of dings/scrapes etc people inflict on their cars taking them on and off drives/garages. To me this makes sense, but its just an opinion, could be a different reason.

Ill admit, my own insurance company would probably fall on its arse. heavily. But if it was done, wouldnt it be an idea to double check a new customer? I.e check for possible fronting, age and the car they have, past history, etc. Yeah you might get bled dry through claims, but what if you were as sensible about your policies as you were about who you insured in the first place? Yes I know that sounds stupid when the unexpected can happen to anyone, but there'll be more of an inherent risk with a certain group than another. Its your company, Im sure you would have the right to say, I dont want to insure you. Just sayin

 

[GinG]

Souped up?!

 

[ubersonic]

Fitting upgraded brakes marks you out as the sort of driver who drives hard - your gran wouldnt even think about doing it

Gotta disagree tbh, how many boy racers in their blinging hatchbacks do you think actually uprate their brakes? and if they do its only cos they want people to see the drilled and grooved discs through their 19" rims. Hell I know a guy with a 340bhp 200sx whos running stock brakes.

The majority of people who buy uprated brake discs/pads do so for safety because the brakes on older cars as simply not as good as on modern ones.

 

[ZG002]

The majority who upgrade brakes also upgrade power... and will be driving their car faster and harder. Pretty much fact

I don't know of anyone one who has upgraded brakes but not (a Upgraded power or (b Used those brakes to full effect.

You are simply more of a risk to the insurance company

 

[Clarkey]

Gotta disagree tbh, how many boy racers in their blinging hatchbacks do you think actually uprate their brakes? and if they do its only cos they want people to see the drilled and grooved discs through their 19" rims. Hell I know a guy with a 340bhp 200sx whos running stock brakes.

The majority of people who buy uprated brake discs/pads do so for safety because the brakes on older cars as simply not as good as on modern ones.

What's wrong with that? They are the same brakes you get on a 300zx, a much heavier car with 300hp.

 

[Jono8]

it makes sense because the insurance companies can see more past claims history on the older model, as im sure that people would be a bit miffed if they bought a new car and were told that the reason there price has increased is because an older model of car has had loads of claims.
plus with insurance it doesnt have to make sense, its about what they can show on paper so if you can see the statistical side of the insurance then you should know logic doesnt come in to the picture

That makes no sense when it is the same car (bar a slightly different looking front end) and is worth considerably more than a 2006 one.

I am interested to know actually, why does the value of the car make no difference to an insurance quote?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I am interested to know actually, why does the value of the car make no difference to an insurance quote?

Because a £5k car costs the same to repair as a £10k car, and does as much damage to other peoples cares.

The biggest cost in insurance claims is personal injury and third party property damage. This is the same whether you are driving a £40,000 Mercedes or a £500 Mercedes.